TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee in this case has made bonafide claim. The disallowance on the above issues was made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference of opinion and not on account of detection of any concealment of income. No penalty to be levied . - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 254 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal and Mr. Amit Rawal, JJ. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue. JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal The appellant-revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 03.08.2016, Annexure A.5, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short, the Tribunal ) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciation claimed at higher rate and depreciation on unproduced bills like mobile phone and laboratories equipment etc. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were also initiated. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 25.08.2011, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee had declared 10% profit rate and if interest was allowed as deduction, the net profit rate will get reduced substantially and hence the interest was not allowable as per the law laid down by this Court in Girdhari Lal Vs. CIT(A) and another , (2002) 256 ITR 318. It was concluded that the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest. Thus, it was observed by CIT(A) that the issue being debatable as two views were possible regarding allowability of interest in cases where profit had been declared on presumptive basis, penalty for concealment could not be levied. Hence penalty levied on addition of interest of ₹ 42,22,678 was cancelled. With regard to penalty levied on disallowance of depreciation, it was observed that the assessee was being allowed depreciation on these assets i.e. commercial vehicles at the rate of 40% in the earlier years and in the assessment year 2008-09, when the Assessing Officer differed, the assessee furnished a revised depreciation chart and offered the amount for taxation. The Assessing Officer had questioned the assessee regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
